Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71488
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain jonstirling.co.uk from 209.85.214.50 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0xaBGLazOp=Q5-Osb7gqTLY3zZZ9rmc32D=BETgDY_0NXcWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADajX4AzUWh4-DALP_-fkpfPB+CMK4NvNJ2ByzmAUz2wGW8n4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU6nt=uu5K9DuE9FXwJC_7qHMjYV=GwZkf_EvkHpz-rPuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL0xaBGLazOp=Q5-Osb7gqTLY3zZZ9rmc32D=BETgDY_0NXcWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:53:21 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPgKKxWVn7Y0QwR=x8XS16AB6pepgnRX5=TUhH3dVHOgNzekoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52c5f5b703ba404f0b37d5f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Ruminations on PHP 5++
From: phoenix@jonstirling.co.uk (Jonny Stirling)

--bcaec52c5f5b703ba404f0b37d5f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Arvids Godjuks <arvids.godjuks@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As far as I know, there is an RFC that defines that big PHP releases are
> done once a year and EOL of previous branches are done in a manner that
> there are no more than 3 branches active at any moment. If you push 5.7 and
> in half a year release 5++ - you will end up with 4 paralel active branches
> and that's not good. We have to rememeber that 5++ will bring a lot of
> change and internal devs will have to deal with of influx of pull requests,
> extension updating, deal with educating people how to not mess up while
> updating the extensions for 64 bit support and so on.
>
> As far as the version number goes - PHP 6 is fine. The mess with the
> Unicode support happend a long time ago and probably is not remembered by
> many :)
>
> Arvids.
>

Whatever the process used, I do agree that it is time to get started, at
least with scheduling, PHP 5++.

As for the controversial naming. I don't think there would have been any
issue with using 6 if the problem was simply the Unicode support. The
problem I see (and I'm only making the point, not suggesting either way) is
that there were so many posts and more importantly books that are still in
circulation for "PHP 6".

Now, the above isn't "our" problem or mistake, but, they do exist and could
cause confusion to the user base.

Jonny.

--bcaec52c5f5b703ba404f0b37d5f--